User talk:Cleanse/Archive 5
For old discussions, please see the arbitrarily divided: * Archive 1 (July 2007 - July 2008) * Archive 2 (August 2008 - May 2009) * Archive 3 (June - December 2009) * Archive 4 (January - December 2010) "Scorpion" FA nomination Thanks for the editing tip, Cleanse – to watch out for being too wordy, especially where quotes are concerned. I'm glad we could come to a refined version of the article that we're both happy with! :) --Defiant 18:15, February 18, 2011 (UTC) :No problem. The comment was partially directed at myself, since I think some of the quotes I've posted over the years could be broken up and better noted by paraphrasing the speaker. ;-) –Cleanse ( talk | ) 23:18, February 18, 2011 (UTC) 0401 I'd like to base this years April Fools FA on the letters of St. Ron to the Trekkians. All of that can be change, of course, if you don't want a clone of the page, in the main namespace, to be used, and most likely the template could be funnier anyway. - 08:21, February 25, 2011 (UTC) :Go forth child, and spread the word of RON. :Seriously though, go right ahead. Take what you want and ditch or replace the unfunny stuff. Quite a bit of it is just in-jokes to various old MA discussions that I'm not sure even most regular contributors would remember. ;-) –Cleanse ( talk | ) 10:27, February 25, 2011 (UTC) maforums.org The password was emailed to you from my username @maforums.org - let me know if you got it as I just got the new mail server up and running. Thanks. — Morder (talk) 21:13, February 26, 2011 (UTC) :Thanks! So you know, Gmail tagged it as spam. ;-) –Cleanse ( talk | ) 00:13, February 27, 2011 (UTC) Yeah, I'm not surprised. Part of the problem is that I'm hosting the server on EC2 (Amazon) but the entire amazon network is flagged by spamhaus as spam...sucks big time. So I'm currently hosting the mail on my private server. Once I setup domainkeys I should be ok but time hasn't been my friend recently. — Morder (talk) 07:15, February 27, 2011 (UTC) Supporting vote for "Visionary" Just wanted to say thanks for your supporting vote for . :) --| TrekFan Open a channel 02:33, February 28, 2011 (UTC) :Not a problem.–Cleanse ( talk | ) 09:57, February 28, 2011 (UTC) Alien of the Week article Thanks, Cleanse, for changing the EAS link title. I wasn't aware the template would use the article's title for the link name – still my fault: I should have read the doc! (Though Bernd did ref. the phenomenon at least twice in the article, just using different terms.) I agree it wasn't the best choice for an external link, but it's all I could come up with. As-is, the article reads like a non-sourced editorial with dubious claims (eg, the claim about the Dosi on DS9). I'm surprised MA has allowed the article to exist; it seems like a candidate for speedy deletion – unless someone can come up with refs. (I do recall reading on MA comments by/about Michael Piller that he shifted TNG from an "AotW"-type show to a more character-driven one.) Perhaps someone can salvage it, though the entire theme of the article seems like almost like a giant nitpick. Thoughts? (Feel free to move this to the talk page.) 16:15, March 4, 2011 (UTC) :It wouldn't be a candidate for speedy deletion (see the deletion policy), but you could bring it up at the normal Pages for Deletion. It might be possible to rewrite the article based on comments from production staff about the phenomenon. But to be honest, in this case I'm not really interested in researching it. I did find this, however. –Cleanse ( talk | ) 00:13, March 5, 2011 (UTC) Thanks. Sometime, if I'm feeling well enough (that is highly variable day-to-day), I could research it, add refs, and clean it up. Please don't feel pressured to do anything about it; I merely wanted to know about the logistical stuff. Still, thanks for the link! :-) 15:54, March 8, 2011 (UTC) "Drumhead" (trial) link Cleanse, Thanks for fixing the link. I thought someone would get to it – you beat me! ;-) (though I shouldn't have left it that way) I was wondering, though: what do you think about creating a Drumhead page, either as a redirect or disambig? I was going to create something like that, but I'm unsure which is better. I do think something should exist there. (And if it's not too much trouble, could you respond on my talk page so I get the message?) Thanks! 13:54, March 8, 2011 (UTC) PS Overall, what do you think about the rather drastic changes I made to the article? Note: I cleaned up Drumhead trial and added a link to the ep at the top (for now). I'm still unsure whether Drumhead should be a disambig or redirect, though. At least people can find the ep more easily now. 15:44, March 8, 2011 (UTC) Input requested Further input is requested here. Thanks. - 00:05, June 10, 2011 (UTC) :I'd like your opinion as to if this post by that user is a personal attack or not.--31dot 09:11, July 7, 2011 (UTC) ::I blocked him; it might not be personal but it certainly is harassment against the site as a whole, and part of a long series of disruptive behaviour for which he has been warned enough times.–Cleanse ( talk | ) 09:23, July 7, 2011 (UTC) :Thank you for looking at it- that's what I was thinking but I wanted to cover the bases since they are well known.--31dot 09:35, July 7, 2011 (UTC) ::No problem. :-) –Cleanse ( talk | ) 09:49, July 7, 2011 (UTC) Jake Sisco While I agree that I should have probably left Cirroc Lofton in the credits of each episode whether he was in it or not, I don't understand you reverting the changes I made on his non-appearances page. The way it is is more confusing than anything, compounded by the fact that it only lists 44 episodes that he has not appeared in when the true number is higher. In fact, you've also reverted my changes to the Jake Sisco page which now says again that he only appeared in a total of 70 episodes total. #1: He appeared in more than that so that is an incorrect "fact", and #2: 70 + 44 (or even 58 if you seperate the episodes listed in non-appearances) only add up to 114 or 128...both numbers well short of the 176 official episodes listed when you divide two-parters into two episodes. So, which is the correct fact? Has he appeared in 70 or not appeared in 44 or 58? You have changed my changes back to something more confusing and incorrect. Quite frankly, that angers me. I'm tired of Wiki-page "police" thinking they know everything and deleting or reverting changes I've made when there was nothing wrong or inaccurate about the changes I've made. Yes, entries should be monitored on some level to weed out profanity or other inapproriate comments, but this is supposed to be enjoyable for us Star Trek fans, a place to look stuff up as well as contribute so that we can feel like we're a part of the Star Trek universe in some tiny way. My contributions were clearer and more accurate! Tribbleator 02:07, July 24, 2011 :I'm not necessarily defending how Jake's list is on the main character non-appearances page, but your edit was clearly inaccurate – as I said when making the revert AND on your talk page, you ignored that some of the entries were ranges, meaning that you left out plenty of episodes in which Jake didn't appear. How it is now is accurate, even if not presented in the most attractive way. :Note that I didn't revert your edits on Jake Sisko, 31dot did. He is also the one who commented on your edits to the credits. You should also note that I took the effort to add a proper appearances list to that article, which shows that Jake appeared in exactly 70 episodes.–Cleanse ( talk | ) 07:14, July 24, 2011 (UTC) My apologies, I'm an idiot. Though I have to say that all this confusion started because rather than listing the episodes he did not appear in seperately, a dash was used to go from one episode to another, which gave a false number of episodes that he did not appear in beside his name. Any way to clear that up? :No worries. The number is automatically generated by the Wiki software based on the number of bullet points in the list. If you want a correct number, you could expand the list to properly list every episode Jake didn't appear in with it's own bullet point (all 100 or so), by cross-referencing with a list of all the episodes (e.g. in the DS9 article). For example, where it currently says - , you'd make sure to list both those episodes as well as all the episodes in between. :There are some technical problems with listing so many episodes (due to each one being a template call), but admittedly the page has that already even with the current Jake list. In the past, there have been several discussions about breaking up the page, but no consensus. Just so you know.–Cleanse ( talk | ) 01:05, July 25, 2011 (UTC) William S. McCullars Dear Cleanse, I was wondering if I´d addressed your concerns about the William S. McCullars article to your satisfaction...--Sennim 21:19, July 29, 2011 (UTC) :Much better. Good work. :-) –Cleanse ( talk | ) 00:19, July 30, 2011 (UTC) Thanks, mate.:) Sennim 00:41, July 30, 2011 (UTC)